the onus to supply backing to any given position or assertion is on the one claiming facts
Source, please?
Comment on Nintendo Targets YouTube Accounts Showing Emulated Games
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 11 hours agoIn the same stroke though the onus to supply backing to any given position or assertion is on the one claiming facts. Else one can go around claiming anything they want and just yell at others to “google it”.
This one is easily found out through a simple search and all but burden of proof isn’t on the one asking for proof, it’s on thenone making the assertion. If they want to verify the proof, then that’s on them of course.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
I know you don’t give a flying fuck. Have it anyways. 😘
…m.wikipedia.org/…/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
www.logicalfallacies.org/burden-of-proof.html
…cambridge.org/…/9781107046627_frontmatter.pdf
woelkchen@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Valve supporting gaming on Linux is common knowledge here. For very niche knowledge or hard to google terms, I’d agree but there’s a limit. One cannot expect to cite sources for every single bit of common knowledge.
The amount of work required to ask for a source is similar to googling it directly, maybe asking is even more work because usually selecting the claim and then right-click --> “Search web for XYZ” works just fine.
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Yeah I agree they should have just looked it up because it’s easy to check. Just was disagreeing that it’s their responsibility to prove it. Their responsibilities are verifying and they failed. It was a stupid pedantic point and I probably shouldn’t have bothered. Sorry if I ruffled feathers. Typed before I thought.